Brainstorm

Brainstorm

Guide the user through a design conversation that produces a written, approved spec before any implementation begins.

The hard gate: no implementation until the design is approved. Do not invoke an implementation skill, write production code, or scaffold project structure until a spec is written and the user has approved it — even for seemingly simple tasks.

Scaffold mode

When invoked with the scaffold argument, or when the user asks to set up the docs-first steering cascade, run this flow instead of the design conversation:

1. Target the current repo root. If the current directory has no .git/ directory, read $CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT/skills/init/references/multi-repo-detection.md and apply it — when a workspace is detected, ask which repo the product lives in and scaffold there (a cascade outside the target repo never auto-loads as steering).
2. For each of docs/product/product-context.md, mvp-prd.md, and tech-stack.md: if it exists, never overwrite — skip it. If missing, copy the matching file from $CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT/skills/brainstorm/templates/product/ verbatim, creating docs/product/ if needed. Write nothing else — no docs/specs/ file (the design flow authors that later), nothing under .claude/.
3. Emit skeletons with TODO markers only — author no product content (no personas, KPIs, business-value prose, or technology choices) and never fill a TODO; that is the human's job.
4. Report created vs skipped files. Tell the user to fill the TODOs top-down (vision → MVP PRD → target stack), then run /optimus:brainstorm in a fresh conversation to design the first build.

Step 1: Pre-flight

If .claude/CLAUDE.md or .claude/docs/coding-guidelines.md is missing, recommend /optimus:init first; on the user's choice, continue with general best practices.

Load .claude/CLAUDE.md and .claude/docs/coding-guidelines.md, plus — only if present — the steering cascade docs/product/product-context.md, mvp-prd.md, and tech-stack.md. Steering informs the design; it is never the task itself or content to copy. Authoring boundary and precedence: $CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT/references/sdd-mapping.md. In a monorepo, load the subproject's own docs/ files (testing, architecture, styling) and shared guidelines from the root .claude/docs/.

If the current directory has no .git/ directory, read $CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT/skills/init/references/multi-repo-detection.md and apply it — operate within the repo the user is targeting; ask which repo if ambiguous.

Scan the project's directory structure, key modules, and existing patterns to ground the conversation in what actually exists.

Step 2: Gather Intent

Check for JIRA context before prompting the user:

1. Inline input matching [A-Z][A-Z0-9]+-\d+ → read docs/jira/<key>.md and use its Goal and Acceptance Criteria as the brainstorm input. If the file is missing, tell the user to run /optimus:jira <KEY> first, then gather intent normally.
2. No inline input and docs/jira/ contains .md files → pick the one with the newest frontmatter date and offer it via AskUserQuestion (Use it / Ignore), noting when the date is over 7 days old that re-running /optimus:jira refreshes it. Use it consumes the file's Goal and Acceptance Criteria and skips the prompts below.

Otherwise use the inline description; if none, ask what to build or change. Distill input longer than ~3 sentences into a single-sentence goal and confirm it with the user.

Surface your key assumptions about scope, constraints, and expected behavior in reply text before the first clarifying question. Then ask at most 3 clarifying questions — a maximum, not a target; one per AskUserQuestion call, preferring multiple-choice — and skip them entirely when intent is already clear.

Step 3: Explore and Propose

Explore the code the design will touch: relevant modules and conventions, dependencies and integration points, related tests. Then present 2-3 approaches (a third only if genuinely distinct), each with a name, a 2-3 sentence description, pros/cons, effort (Low / Medium / High), and alignment with existing patterns — plus a recommendation with a one-sentence rationale.

The user selects via AskUserQuestion, one option per approach with the recommendation marked. If they want to combine aspects or redirect, incorporate the feedback and present a revised approach before proceeding.

Step 4: Design

Develop a detailed design covering the spec template sections in Step 5, omitting those that don't apply. Before writing a Scenarios section, read $CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT/skills/brainstorm/references/scenario-style.md for inclusion signals and Given/When/Then discipline — /optimus:tdd consumes each scenario as one Red-Green-Refactor cycle.

Present the design in conversation and iterate through an Approve / Adjust AskUserQuestion until the user approves.

Step 5: Write the Spec

Write to docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic-slug>.md (lowercase hyphenated slug from the goal, max 5 words; create docs/specs/ if needed). The slug must match [a-z0-9]+(-[a-z0-9]+)* — reject and re-derive any slug that does not match (tdd's spec discovery and the plan-mode append target depend on a shell-safe, date-prefixed path). If the file already exists, ask the user whether to overwrite or append a -2, -3, … suffix; on overwrite, carry any existing ### Refined plan section into the new file — it holds plan-mode iteration. Set Status to Approved. Keep the spec under 200 lines.

# Spec: <Title>

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Status:** Approved
**Goal:** <single sentence — what and why>

## Context
<Why the change is needed; relevant existing state.>

## Approach
<How it works; key decisions and their rationale.>

## Components
| Component | Responsibility | New / Modified |
|-----------|----------------|----------------|

## Interfaces
<How components interact — APIs, data flow, signatures. Skip for single-file changes.>

## Edge Cases and Risks
| Risk | Mitigation |
|------|------------|

## Scenarios
<Conditional — 3-7 Given/When/Then scenarios per scenario-style.md; remove the section if none apply.>

### Scenario: <concrete user-observable outcome>
**Given** <starting state in business language>
**When** <single user action>
**Then** <observable outcome>

## Out of Scope
- <What this design explicitly does not cover>

## Open Questions
- <Deferred decisions — remove if none>

The spec ships with no TODOs or placeholders. If closing a gap would change a design decision the user approved, ask before changing it.

Step 6: Report

## Design Complete

**Spec:** `<spec-path>`
**Goal:** <single-sentence goal>
**Approach:** <chosen approach name>
**Components:** <count> (<count> new, <count> modified)

Step 7: Next Step

Route by task type. Substitute the actual spec path into every recommendation and emitted block — /optimus:refactor and /optimus:unit-test do not read docs/specs/ on their own. Recommend running the routed skill in a fresh conversation.

Task	Route
Refactoring	/optimus:refactor, passing the scope and key decisions from <spec-path> as the scope argument
Test-only	/optimus:unit-test, passing the target paths from <spec-path>
Small implementation (1-2 components, <5 behaviors)	/optimus:tdd directly — it auto-detects the spec at <spec-path>
Medium-to-large implementation	Plan-mode handoff below
Prose deliverable (zero code components, or the goal names a written artifact)	Prose flow below

Plan-mode handoff (medium-to-large)

Read $CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT/skills/brainstorm/references/plan-mode-handoff.md and emit its Prompt skeleton as a copyable plan-mode prompt, filled from the spec with <doc-path> = <spec-path>, and closed with the carve-out's ## How this conversation should run block.

Then tell the user the three carve-out steps from that reference, and emit the execution prompt as a second copyable block from the same skeleton.

Prose flow

/optimus:tdd does not apply — use the default flow from plan-mode-handoff.md. Emit the same plan-mode prompt, but close it with a ## How this conversation should run section saying: iterate on the plan against the actual codebase; once the user approves the plan, implement it in that same conversation to produce the deliverable; afterwards recommend /optimus:commit in that same conversation so the implementation context is captured. Tell the user: start a fresh conversation in plan mode, paste the prompt, iterate, and approve the plan when satisfied. Skip the execution prompt.